In a world where fact-checkers hop on every word from Donald Trump, recent accusations implying connections between Joe Biden and the prosecution of the former president have constantly faced fire. Yet, further analysis suggests an intricate web that leaves an undeniable mark on this investigation, pointing towards the involvement of Biden’s administration.
Trump’s allegations concerning the involvement of the current president and his team in the prosecution crusade against him, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, may not be baseless conspiracy theories that some media giants make them out to be. The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland presents an intriguing argument that supports these claims. The roots of this story can be traced back to early 2021, conflicting with CNN’s Daniel Dale’s narrative that the involvement began with Matthew Colangelo, a former official from Biden’s Justice Department.
The early connections can be observed in instances when the Manhattan D.A.’s office had privately invited Mark Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, to act as a special assistant district attorney amidst the Trump investigation. This was a highly unusual move. Even the New York Times, a known Democratic support base, confirmed this fact.
Following Pomerantz’s enlistment, his colleagues, Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson, went on temporary leave from Paul, Weiss to aid in the Trump investigation. It’s worth questioning why a law firm would offer three of its attorneys to a public prosecutor’s office. Yet, the mystery starts unfolding when one considers the law firm’s contribution to Biden.
It wouldn’t be a far-fetched assumption to connect the law firm’s actions with their history of being generous donors to Biden’s elections. During Biden’s run for the White House, the law firm held a lavish $2,800-per-plate fundraiser. Additionally, Paul, Weiss’s Chair, Brad Karp, actively bundled at least $100,000 for Biden’s campaign.
Biden’s relation with Karp didn’t end after his election victory; it continued and even extended to state dinners. Bloomberg even labeled Paul, Weiss, the “Biden-Era N.Y. Power Center.”
Now, put in the context of these connections, the unusual move of the law firms seems less about generosity and more about strategic influence. With Pomerantz handling the Trump investigation as a special assistant to the Manhattan D.A., decisions could be biased. In fact, Trump’s prosecution might not have happened if Pomerantz wasn’t involved.
This brings the discourse back to the beginning. Do the “independent fact-checkers” give unbiased assessments, or is there more to this story that needs revisiting? The intersection between politics, law, and media in this context leaves us with crucial questions about the impartiality of our systems.
Ultimately, it’s important to question whether independent fact-checking protocols are influenced by the biased interplay of politics and media, or if they uphold the objective assessments they claim. The ties between Biden and the Trump investigation may be more pronounced than most outlets would admit. The narrative is not always as black and white as some would have us believe. It’s about time we demand fair and straightforward reporting from our media.
